Friday, May 5, 2017

A series of responses to why millennials aren't fans of church

Introduction.   Before I get to the individual points, I’ll deal with his introductory material.

Clearly there is a lot of material that won’t get covered in detail, but I hope to hit some of the high points and specifically areas of agreement (at least partial). 

“It seems all-too-often our churches are actually causing more damage than good, and the statistics are showing a staggering number of millennials have taken note.”
Clearly, this statement is a huge overstatement.  It’s so general and unsupported that it really has little value and probably serves to undercut any future positive things he has to say.   The best he has is his citation of a study about what millennials “believe” to be the case.    Simply because someone believes something, doesn’t make it true.

“Where is the task-force searching for the lost generation?  Where is the introspective reflection necessary when 1/3 of a generation is anti-church?”
One answer to the first question is Fuller Seminary. A couple of answers to the second question are, the Twin Cities metro area and Omaha.  I’m quite sure there are others.  One must wonder how hard the author actually looked before asking his questions.


Probably the biggest problem in interacting with the piece in question is the tendency of the author to address things in broad sweeping generalities with a generous dose of hyperbole thrown in.   His treatment of both “the church” and “millennials” as if they are monolithic homogenous entities makes serious discourse difficult.   Because when someone says “No one is doing…”, all that is necessary to falsify the claim is to point out one example of that particular thing being done.  Also, it’s abundantly clear that there are churches across the country doing (or trying to do) virtually everything he addresses.  The question becomes, “Why not find the churches heading in the direction you manifesto suggests, and point them out for praise?”.   This is a valid and important question I believe, but one that will probably not be answered with any specificity.  It’s obviously easier to point out what you perceive as wrong, instead of searching out and encouraging what you think is right.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the recent study that shows that roughly 30% of millennials still live with their parents.  While there certainly are extenuating circumstances, I’d suggest that any generation who have such a high degree of dependence might not be the best example to follow.


Finally, I’ll say that for years people have said that Christianity is always one generation from extinction, and I believe that to be true.  So, clearly reaching this generation is critical.   Unlike the author, I look at the student/young adults in leadership positions, as well as my son and his friends who are actively engaged in preparing for ministry and leadership roles both in and out of church, and I think that maybe there’s hope after all.   I also want to state up front that this is a conversation that I am very much involved in at an actual church in the real world, this isn't theory.  I truly want to have this discussion and hope that there are answers.

8 comments:

Stan said...

"Christianity is always one generation from extinction."

You agreed with the statement. I would agree with one clear caveat -- "In a world unaffected by God." If we live in God's world, the statement can't be true given Jesus's words, "I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18) If Christianity is predicated on what we do and say, then the statement might be true. Christianity is not. Now, having said that, we must always be diligent to find out our errors and correct them.

I'm interested, however, in the thinking that warns that "1/3 of a generation is anti-church." Really? Only one third? Because the biblical version is more like "many" and those who are not are "few". I suspect that people who warn of such things are buying numbers like "75% of Americans are Christian" with a false definition of "Christian".

So, carry on. Good things to address. Just trying to keep in mind that 1) the Church is not in jeopardy and 2) what we expect is "few", not "many" and don't allow numbers to drive doctrine or practice without regard to Scripture.

Craig said...

Point well taken. Clearly God will superintend the Church through whatever might come against it. I've always taken the quote as more of a caution against failing to "train up our children" and that's the sense I was using it here.

This whole thing is made slightly more difficult because I also believe in the sovereignty of God and that He's going to call whoever He chooses to call and these sorts of strategies are not going to change that.

The other side of things is that I believe that the Church does need to be God's kingdom on earth and that community of all generations is a good, healthy thing.

I hadn't thought about the fact that we should expect the percentage to be higher not lower.

I think that the biggest issue with this discussion is that if the Church doesn't adapt, then we will have people thinking that being a Christian without the community is a rational choice, and that it encourages the "spiritual/not religious" trend we see.

It's interesting that in his point about culture, it seems pretty clear that what he is looking for is a church that is not being subsumed by the culture, but one that is truly acting a ways counter to the culture. This tells me that he is not looking for a "social gospel" kind of church, but a 1 Peter kind of church. For some reason I find this reassuring. Even though I have problems with some of the points or how he's expressed them I really think he's looking for a challenging, authentic, Biblical church.

Stan said...

I agree with you, which is why I said, "So, carry on. Good things to address."

I haven't seen a link to the source of the original article. Do you have it?

Craig said...

I can post it when I'm on a real computer, or you can go to the source of this, it's in his post.

Stan said...

I didn't see the reference to "his post" or I'd go there. Who? That would do nicely.

Craig said...

He whose name can't be mentioned.

Dan.

Stan said...

Oh, thanks! I don't go there; wouldn't have thought of him.

Craig said...

I'd be interested in your take one you read the original article.